Interesting discussion.
After consideration, I would have to say that “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” is actually a stronger and more moral statement than “identifying” with “Charlie”, when one actually does not, in many ways. Perhaps the Frenchman, Charles-Philippe, should have used the Englishwoman’s words!
On the other hand, I don’t know that we’ll ever get “True western unity based on the real religion and culture of the west”. The culture within so much of the Western population has decayed so far, that, that sort of true unity is probably long gone. Likely, the best we’ll get is a shaky coalition based on fear and anger. Those may be legit emotions, but if not “channeled” adroitly by capable leaders (eg., WW2), such coalitions tend to get a lot of their own blood spilled, unnecessarily.
As an aside, IMO, the idea that the US angered the Japanese into attacking is a less than straw, strawman. The Japanese at the time deserved an all out attack by the Allies, not just an oil embargo…! But pacifism was still strong in the US, Hitler was a greater danger in Europe, and we were not ready… If anything, the Japanese probably saw weakness in our response (embargo), even though it would have hampered them, with time.
Oops, sorry, L.R., I meant to include you in the prev. post.
“The culture within so much of the Western population has decayed so far, that, that sort of true unity is probably long gone. Likely, the best we’ll get is a shaky coalition based on fear and anger.”
I agree. Those 3.7 million who showed up were not there to oppose Islam. They were there to show they were upset, but not upset at Islam. Many Muslims were in the crowd. There is no REAL unity there.